| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 22nd 04, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (William) wrote in message Cecil didn't "switch" anything, The hell he didn't. He resigned his NCI membership. Really? I obviously missed that one. Good for him. After the rules changed, he said that reduction to 5 wpm for all classes was enough. He resigned his membership in NCI and soon after reduced his participation here. He's still around in rraa but not nearly as much as before. The bottom line is that Cecil and many others are ahead of the power curve as usual but thee and me and a few other PCTAs are silly enough to still hang out around here. Sort of. Who does most of the posting here, in both number of posts and length? It ain't me or thee, by a long shot. This USENET group was a huge deal back when the code test flap was The Big Thing. 4-1/2+ years ago. Which at this point is a dead topic since the code test is obviously not going away within any visible timframe if ever. Frankly, I'm amazed that FCC didn't MO&O it out of existence last summer. So Cecil, Hare, innumerable others and even Carl Anderson Stevenson for cripes sake, the Honcho Maximo of NCI wised up and bailed out of here long ago leaving us to bicker mindlesssly, circularly and endlessly with dim lights like Burke and the other Anderson. WE'RE the RRAP stupids for bothering with any of it Miccolis. Who is bothering? I read a few posts, write a few, discuss interesting topics with KB3EIA, N8UZE, and some others. Filtering what one reads works wonders. Carl only got to reap what he sowed. He also altered his opinion to something he said that he would never do. Nothing wrong with changing one's mind - I do it at least three times before breakfast. (someone's quote) But a large part of my earlier respect was based on that "never reducing test requirements" statement. So he did a lot of credibility erosion there. And I respond to who I like in the group. occasionally even Lenover21, when I'm in a puckish mood! ;^) Sorry you weren't there to join that exercise No you're not. Congratulations Burke, you finally got something right. All were invited. Some of us showed up. And some of us have worked since. Remember that FD when you worked AC6XG on 20 CW? Sure, whatta hoot. What was is it . . midnight or so at that hopeless Clayton Park FD fiasco . . ? Yep. 20 had been slowly petering down all evening and I was in a hurt for Qs but then suddenly the Ether perked up and there was Jim big and bad at 40wpm. I'll do you a favor and not get into a description your dismal encounter with my Kent paddles . . heh . . ! Then I hooked up the bug and chatted w/him. That musta been four years ago - since then I've done at least 3 non-CP FDs Logged him. Refresh me here James, I think it was around the time that I logged XG that I/we started to hear a lot more signals from very far off places than I/we could hear from US FD stations. So to hell with FD, let's get back to basics and go dxing I sayithed to self. Worked the JA who was in some other contest. Logged him too. Apparently Newington did not disallow that one. DX contacts count for FD. They give you a signal report, it counts. They simpy doan give a **** abt FD logs good or bogus. Not true! The QSOs were good. There was one SP handing 'em out 2-3 a minute later on - remember? They all counted. Then came Balch who finally waddled in out of the gloom of the parking lot (two hours late as usual) to take over the seat and rolled his eyes heavenward when he was copying my Q with the VK2 blaring all over the park from the 940 spkr. Yep. DX qsos count; it's just that DX stations' logs aren't counted competitively in the listings. A year or two ago the definition was changed so that FD covers not just North America but SA too. Which means N2EY/Tierra del Fuego could compete... . . worked the German and then the Peruvian but that was it, thus I blew a one-hour midnite FD WAC for the lack of a Q with an African. RATZ, not a ZS6 anywhere to be found! I remember.... All of 'em, I believe we agree (but check me), were worked with radiation from the shield of the coax which fed Robert's triband Mosely aircooled dummy load upon high. Musta been 5 years ago, becuz the next year you brought the halfsize G5RV to avoid such headaches. I have not gotten into this topic previously anywhere with anybody because several years later it still ****es me off the extent that I can still easily go too ballistic about it and post fodder which anti-hams would just love. But fuggit, I gotta get it off my chest and let the chips fall where they might. I hear ya. I don't remember which of those three Clayton Park debacles we did together but during one of 'em it was well after sundown, very late, most of the usual crowd had gone home, activity was down and I was grinding away but going nowhere in a hurry. I took a break for a pit stop. On my way back to my seat I first passed a group of the usual collection of hardcore neighborhood repeater dwellers we both know bull****ting abt nothing as usual. A few feet later there was young guy who was clearly having odd problems with the HF xcvr he was using, some POS or another. So I asked "Are you having problems guy?" "Yes I am". The guy was blind, he was not familiar with the POS "they" finally scheduled him to operate after everybody else had gotten their jollies off with it earlier at their convenience but he could not diddle it's controls and get it on the air. I sat with him for some length of time, maybe 15 minutes or so and guided his hands around the front panel of the xcvr and got him up and running on some phone band or another. In the meanwhile the aformentioned collection of bull****ers wasn't more than eight feet from him throuhout all of it. I gotta tell you that in all my half century on the bands that was the worst of the worst of the bad experiences I've had in the game. Madonna was right: It's a material world. Yes, I fear for the future of ham radio. I did not know that story. Makes me sick. Oy! Just remember, Karma keeps a bank account, and pays back with interest! Thank goodness you stopped to help the guy, Brian. Now watch, somebody will spin it into being *your* fault. But do not fear for the future of amateur radio too much. Here's why: Back when you started, and to a lesser extent even when I started, ham radio was populated mostly by folks who took it very seriously. "Radio for its own sake" wasn't something most people were interested in. The license process, operating skill requirements and equipment costs alone insured that most hams had a considerable personal investment - and the money was the least of it. Sure, there were some clueless folk but they either learned or were really frustrated. Then a bunch of things happened. The cb boom made 2 way radio popular and practical for lots of folks, the development of ssb and then fm transceivers and solidstate made the equipment small, less expensive and easier to use, etc. We got a lot of good hams, of course, but also a sizable number who are only "sort of" interested, and who don't take it that seriously, nor have a big personal investment. The whole code test issue is really just an iceberg-tip for the concept of personal investment. Now we have the internet and cheap cell phones and GMRS/FRS. Which have pulled away a lot of the folks who were "sort of" interested in ham radio. That's why repeater use and 'honeydew' licensing is down - much easier to just use the cell phone or FRS. So the future of ham radio relies on those who are really interested in radio for its own sake and are a lot more than "sort of" interested. Those folks are out there, and will continue to be. But they will not be attracted by lowering the requirements or trying to make ham radio a sort of rf version of the internet. Wow! That last paragraph is a real keeper, Jim. I may post it in my shack, WYP of course.... - Mike KB3EIA - |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
| First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
| First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
Threaded Mode
